[geocentrism] Re: New paper

  • From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:56:37 -0400

Neville said: 

Once again, thanks for your criticism. My replies are as follows:
A small g field would be subject to local perturbations just from the Sun and 
Moon position changes.  EG: The sun's gravity on the geostat sat varies by 
about 3% in 12 hours - the difference between the Sun and sat being on the same 
side and then on opposite sides of the earth. This would lead to obvious 
deviations from the geostat altitude over time. 
This assumes that the Sun and Moon have gravitational fields. The arcs we 
observe on the Sun can be purely magnetic.
RB: Isn’t the Newtonian model being used here to compare with your model?  My 
comment referred to the inability of Newton’s gravity with Earth alone to keep 
a stable geostat distance when the Sun and Moon perturbations are also 
considered.  In the MS Newtonian model, the Sun and Moon definitely have 
gravitational fields.
Why not replace the term ‘gravity field’ w/aether?  We know that the far 
firmament rotates westward and the near firmament eastward, so the boundary 
must be stagnant - at the geostat distance (as discussed in past posts).
You have lost me here. How do we know this?
RB:  The cb’s from the Moon to the galaxies (the far firmanent) all rotate 
westward in the GS frame. 
The LEO satellites and the general global atmospheric motion(near firmament)  
is eastward in the GS frame.  Spacecraft are launched eastward to get a boost 
from the Earth’s rotation, according to MS Physics, but GC says that’s just the 
aether flow boost.
In the N and S hemispheres, the prevailing upper winds 5 miles up are the 
eastbound jet streams, with even higher speeds at higher altitudes… all caused 
by the aether vortex flow – eastward.
Somewhere between the LEOs and the Moon, the aether flow reverses => at the 
geostat distance(GSD). Voila!
Below the GSD, Earth satellites orbit eastward; above, they orbit westward.  
This is meant literally (as in the Bible!) – all celestial bodies are 
satellites of Earth , either primary, secondary or tertiary. 
If Paul D finishes the GS T vs R graph for artificial satellites, the 
functional dependence of cosmic period on GS distance, and the reversal 
distance will be manifested quantitatively.  

Much as we would map an EM field, we need a spatial map of the aether 
properties in the GS ref frame near the Earth and make predictions that are 
experimentally separable from Newton. 
Which 'type' of aether do you prefer?
RB:the GI aether and the firmament
... the radio-frequency ion propulsion system did a remarkable job in raising 
such a mass almost 4,800 km against the force of gravity with a nominal thrust 
of just 0.015 N. ..... This tends to imply that there could have been no 
gravitational force acting on the satellite from an altitude of at most 31,000 
Secondly, we note that its increase in altitude was a constant 14 km per day, 
but that the thrust was also constant. 
This further points to there being zero gravitational field strength at 31,000 
km,  ==> the law of inertia, being wrong 
insofar as it refers to moving objects.
....there can only have been zero acceleration during the 343 days of 
continuous firing of the 15 mN ion thruster, 
Fourthly, Newton's second law of motion has to be flawed in some way, since the 
ion thruster on ARTEMIS 
produced force and resultant velocity, but no acceleration.
From the Artemis site: With a thrust of just 0.015 N, RITA raised the orbit of 
Artemis by just 15 km per day until operational geostationary orbit was achieved
I believe the 15 km/day refers to an average speed , not continuous.  To 
increase altitude from 31 Mm requires an acceleration , just as stopping at 36 
Mm requires a deceleration. (See the yellow zone in image below).  
I interpret the description as pointing RITA earthward for the first half ~ 170 
days, and reversing the thrust of .015 N for the last half of the trip.  The 
average would be the speed at about 85 days into the trip.
I would certainly verify this with an inquiry.
Certainly no mention of thrust reversal or average speed is made and the 
trouble with such an enquiry is that the ones who think they are answering the 
question place a MS slant on what thet themselves understood went on. This is a 
problem in general when it comes to space, the fact that no one is actually 
there to see with their own eyes what happened. Everything is simply assumed to 
work a la Newton.
RB:  The technical details of the Artemis orbit correction that we need may 
have been lost in their summarization for the general public. 
If the MS response to an inquiry is suspect, then why is the published ESA 
description of Artemis/Rita believed at all?  Why believe what was published, 
but not a followup from the same source? 
Isn’t this deja-vu – like picking and choosing Biblical beliefs?  Here the 
published description of Artemis is accepted as credible, yet a request for 
additional information is dismissed pre-emptively as suspect ??  
It is this inconsistency in epistemology that makes it difficult to have 
reasonable discussions; the sources of truth in both science and Scripture vary 
with personal feelings of subjective acceptance or rejection.  
Surely the claim that the 2nd law is faulty is a serious charge, and requires 
verification that the Artemis description - and your interpretation of it – are 
correct. And that my interpretation of average speed is wrong.    
All that’s needed is to ask what operational commands were sent to Rita, since 
it appears the orbit adjustment at constant thrust would overshoot the GSD of 
3.6 Mega-m (not 36 Mm, as I erroneously have above). Don’t mention Newton’s 
laws or their violation – just ask for the actual Rita commands. 
If you are not inclined to inquire, I will. 
            The observed speed of cb’s is then the speed of the cb in the 
aether plus the aether’s speed with respect to Earth(GS frame).
Agreed - hence the Sun 'losing' 4 minutes per day, for example.
RB: Let me clarify. The Galilean addition law holds for powered space craft, 
that can move relative to the aether. The cb’s are passive; their observed 
speed IS the aether’s speed.   The orbit period of the Sun is 4 mins 
slower/longer than the stars because the aether’s speed at the Sun’s location 
is 4 mins slower than at the stars. 
ESA has partnered with NASA previously; can ESA – or any space agency - be 
trusted, as an ally of NASA? Is the Artemis data just a computer simulation?   
Why is ESA exempted from these charges  -  continental chauvinism?  
I should state that it is only with deep space exploration (in which category I 
place the Moon) that I distrust NASA. I have no problem with them for LEO, nor 
for GTO and geostat sat stuff.
RB:I do have a problem with inconsistent choices of truth sources. Also there 
is a problem with all the unexpected agreement above re aether ( which I edited 
out).  There must be a failure to communicate somewhere! :-)  :-)
Seriously, it would be good to have help in modeling the aether – which I 
intend to explore in the near future.
Just think, Neville  – the aether domain is wide-open; hasn’t been researched 
in a century!

GIF image

Other related posts: